Did You Know...

The Democrats are the ones who are gender quota-mongerers. The Democrats are the ones who use femme-statistics to push more mandates and government meddling when so many factors other than gender discrimination explain disparities.

But when held to account for their own rhetoric and ideology, the Democrats do what they always do: Cut and run.

After wrapping itself in the GOP-bashing “War on Women” cape, the White House is absolutely tongue-tied when it comes time to answer for gender hiring disparities at Obama’s beleaguered Secret Service.

Here’s White House flack Jay Carney dodging questions about the percentage of women in Obama’s Secret Service (11%):

Carney: I would simply say, as I did earlier, that assessments of the institutions, culture, broader questions about the mission, I think, uh, need to be, uh, held in reserve while this investigation into a specific incident, uh, is completed. Uh, and in many ways, I think that those questions, will be looked at broadly but also specifically by the Secret Service, as is appropriate. So, but, I don’t have a comment specifically to that, uh, beyond what I’ve said.

Another female reporter: …if the percentage of women in the Secret Service is indeed 11 percent, you can speak to that, correct?

Carney: Again, I can’t. I’m not familiar even with that figure. I would simply that questions about the mission, the institution, broader questions about the Secret SErvice that arise from this incident and this investigation, I think, at least from here, I will resist answering, because it’s not appropriate while this investigation is ongoing. And I think those questions in many ways will be and should be addressed to the Secret Service itself. But they are focused on this investigation into this incident at this time. And it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to make broad observations about the institution during this period.

Reporter: Would you agree that if that figure is correct, it’s really, it’s very low.

Carney: Well, again. You’re saying “if that figure is correct, what do I think about it.” I don’t know that figure to be correct or incorrect.

Reporter: We’re talking about 11 percent as a percentage.

Carney: Well, again, it’s a law enforcement agency. I don’t know how that compares to other law enforcement agencies. I would simply ask that, uh…well, you know, you can ask, but I would ask for understanding as to why I’m not going to make, uh, broad assessments of the institution itself, its mission, its culture, while this specific investigation is going on.

Just a reminder that Carney is Mr. Stats McStats when it comes to unloading figures on women and employment to try and paint Republicans with the broad, anti-woman brush.

MR. CARNEY: Let me say a couple things. First of all, I have not spoken with the President about this so I don’t have anything to report to you on that. Secondly, I think we can all agree — Democrats and Republicans — that raising children is an extremely difficult job and that is true for all mothers as well as fathers.

But we should also focus on where we disagree. It is not coincidental that the very first piece of legislation that this President signed when he entered office was the Lilly Ledbetter Free [sic] Pay Act. It had passed Congress and the President signed it into law. Why did it take President Obama entering office, being sworn into office, to have the Fair Pay Act become law? Because Republicans overwhelmingly opposed it, and presumably still do.

When the President took office, we were shedding roughly 750,000 jobs a month, and men and women across the nation were feeling the pain of the worst recession since the Great Depression. We have seen 25 straight months of private sector growth, resulting in 4.1 million jobs.

And when it comes to women in the economy, there has been a particular focus. As you know, as recently as last week there was a forum here to discuss exactly what we need to continue doing to ensure that women are able to get to work with good-paying jobs that can help their families and help them make ends meet. I would note, again, that one of the principal elements of the American Jobs Act was a provision — and this is the President’s American Jobs Act — was a provision to provide assistance to states to rehire 400,000 teachers.

As you know, in this period of 25 straight months of private sector job growth, there has also been reductions in jobs in states and localities because of pressures on the fiscal — on the budgets of states and localities. This assistance would have ensured that 400,000 teachers would have gone back to work. Teachers, as you know — women are represented disproportionately in our teaching corps across the country. Republicans overwhelmingly opposed that provision.

In the Ryan budget — the Ryan/Republican budget, 400,000 students would lose Pell grants in 2013, and another 465,000 students would lose Pell grants in 2014. In addition, 9 million students would experience cuts in their grants starting in 2013, which would deepen to as much as $1,150 per student. Roughly speaking, you can divide all those numbers by half in terms of the impact that those cuts would have on women.

The Head Start program — in 2013, a $430 million cut to the Head Start program would result in 60,000 low-income women — children — low-income children, rather, losing access to early childhood education. After that, a $1.5 billion cut to the Head Start program would result in 200,000 low-income children losing access to early education.

As some of you know, one of the cuts that would occur, by our analysis, if the Ryan/Republican budget were enacted into law, would be to the Women, Infants and Children program, a program that has had longstanding bipartisan support. The Republican House budget resolution cuts $350 million from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children. Cuts of this magnitude would require kicking about 700,000 pregnant or post-partum women, infants and children off of WIC and denying another 100,000 from receiving critical foods necessary for healthy child development.